This morning, by a vote of 154 nations in favor (including the United States), 23 abstentions, and three against (Syria, North Korea, and Iran), the U.N. General Assembly adopted the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). The treaty will be open for national signature on June 3, 2013, and will enter into force for its signatories when it has been signed and ratified by 50 nations.

Though the vote in favor of the treaty seems overwhelming, a closer look shows something different. Among the major exporting and importing nations, China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, and Russia abstained. So did most of the Arab Group, as well as a range of anti-American regimes, including Bolivia, Cuba, and Nicaragua, and a smattering of others, including Belarus, Burma, and Sri Lanka.

A further 13 nations did not vote, including some known opponents of the treaty, such as Venezuela and Zimbabwe. Finally, while Pakistan voted in favor of the treaty, its statement in explanation implied that it was voting for the treaty because it anticipated that India would abstain, and it wanted to look good by comparison.

Thus, what the U.N. vote amounts to is the tacit rejection of the treaty by most of the world’s most irresponsible arms exporters and anti-American dictatorships, who collectively amount to half of the world’s population.

Today the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted a global gun control treaty called the Arms Trade Treaty. Now the fight begins here at home. There are several things gun owners need to know to protect their constitutional rights.

Now that it’s been proposed, the treaty goes to all the member states to decide on whether to join. Per the U.S. Constitution, in America it must first be signed by the president (which it will), then be ratified by two-thirds of the U.S. Senate (which it won’t). The United States is not likely to join the treaty as a nation, though President Barack Obama will likely push for it.

The General Assembly can’t do anything at the United Nations except propose (not establish) treaties and admit new U.N. members. Most of the power at the U.N. is in the Security Council, which consists of five permanent members (including the U.S.) and ten rotating seats among all the other U.N. members. So the General Assembly did one of the only things it can by recommending this treaty to its member states.

However, the first danger is that U.S. courts have held we’re bound by “customary international law,” sometimes called the “law of nations.” If enough U.N. member states were to adopt this treaty, a liberal federal court could rule it has become customary international law. The current Supreme Court would never affirm such a ruling, but there is a real danger if Obama changes the balance of the Court over the next three years.

Because federal statutes and treaties are of equal force under the U.S. Constitution, whenever they are in direct conflict, the most-recently passed of the two prevails. So, if somehow this treaty were ratified by the Senate, if Congress were to later pass a statute taking the opposite position, it would trump the treaty.

Of course, you need a president’s signature to pass a statute or two-thirds of Congress to override a presidential veto, so we would need a president in 2016 who supports the Second Amendment to pass such a law.

[…] The dangers are obvious, however. If Barack Obama manages to get an anti-gun politician like Hillary Clinton or Andrew Cuomo to follow him in 2016 as president, and changes the balance of the Supreme Court over time, then the Arms Trade Treaty could open America up to a worldwide U.N. gun control regime. That could lay the groundwork and set up a system that a decade or two from now could restrict lawful firearm ownership in this nation.

The tyrants at the UN won’t be satisfied until every citizen capable of resisting them world-wide is disarmed into sitting ducks. If just 2/3 of the Senate votes to ratify this treaty, our gun rights will be in serious jeopardy.

The fact that Democrats are willing to take the side of other nations against their own fellow citizens’ constitutional right to self-defense reveals how traitorous they truly are.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said there was not enough support to give Sen. Dianne Feinstein the stand-alone vote she demands on the “assault weapon” ban, but the upper chamber may soon be the deciding factor in whether the United States ratifies an international treaty that could strip Americans of their Second Amendment rights.

On Monday, the United States joined in the nine day conference in New York to finalize negotiations of the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). The treaty is intended to regulate the global trade of conventional weapons, but depending how the final document is worded, it could put at risk Americans’ right to keep and bear arms.

The countries were negotiating the draft last July, but stopped when the U.S. asked for a delay. Many believe Mr. Obama pushed the issue past Election Day in order not to further alienate gun owners. Now that he has more “flexibility” in his second term, the U.S. is back at the table.

Secretary of State John Kerry has encouraged reaching consensus by March 28. “The United States is steadfast in its commitment to achieve a strong and effective Arms Trade Treaty that helps address the adverse effects of the international arms trade on global peace and stability,” he wrote in a statement Friday.

[…] Mr. Obama will likely go ahead and sign the treaty as it is. Then the only thing standing in the way of the U.N. stripping Americans of their Second Amendment rights is if he can get two-thirds of the Senate to ratify.

Certainly the ATT is controversial. Touted as a means of getting a handle on an international arms trade valued at $60 billion a year, its stated purpose is to keep illicit weapons out of the hands of terrorists, insurgent fighters and organized crime at an international level.

Its vague and suspicious wording led some 150 members of Congress last June to send a letter to President Obama and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warning that the treaty is “likely to pose significant threats to our national security, foreign policy and economic interests as well as our constitutional rights.”

We have noted that a paper by the U.N.’s Coordinating Action on Small Arms (CASA) says that arms have been “misused by lawful owners” and that the “arms trade therefore be regulated in ways that would . .. minimize the misuse of legally owned weapons.”

Would defending your home against intruders, or U.S. laws permitting concealed carry, be considered a “misuse?”

[…] Last Thursday, Rep. Mike Kelly, R-Pa., introduced a bipartisan resolution opposing the treaty. The resolution states the U.N. proposal “places free democracies and totalitarian regimes on a basis of equality” and represents a threat to U.S. national security.

Our Constitution is unambiguous in its protection of gun rights. The ATT is not.

Interestingly, just as the world’s worst human rights violators have sat on and often chaired the U.N. Human Rights Council, Iran, arms supplier extraordinaire to America’s enemies, was elected to a top position at the United Nations Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty held in New York last July.

The U.S. is one of few countries that has anything like a Second Amendment, our Founding Fathers enshrining the right to bear arms in our founding principles in recognition of it being the ultimate bulwark against tyrannical government.

The fact that an organization full of tyrants, dictators, thugs and gross human rights violators wants to control small arms worldwide is hardly a surprise.

Somehow, administration assurances that the treaty won’t infringe on our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms doesn’t reassure us.

In one of the most politically despicable moves ever perpetrated by a sitting administration, federal immigration officials have released hundreds of illegal aliens from prison in anticipation of budget cuts produced by the sequester. “As fiscal uncertainty remains over the continuing resolution and possible sequestration, ICE has reviewed its detained population to ensure detention levels stay within ICE’s current budget,” said agency spokeswoman Gillian M. Christensen in a statement. Immigration officials further warned that even more releases are possible, if the anticipated cuts are realized.

In Arizona, Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu, who revealed that more than 500 inmates were released in his county alone, put this ploy in the proper perspective. “President Obama would never release 500 criminal illegals to the streets of his hometown, yet he has no problem with releasing them in Arizona. The safety of the public is threatened and the rule of law discarded as a political tactic in this sequester battle,” he said.

[…] In a coordinated scare tactic, DHS Secretary Janet A. Napolitano on Monday warned that, if the sequester occurs, as many as 5000 border agents will also be furloughed, increasing the chances that even more, and possibly more dangerous, illegal aliens will be roaming the countryside. “I don’t think we can maintain the same level of security,” Ms. Napolitano contended.

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) cut right through the manufactured hysteria. In a letter sent to Ms. Napolitano, he outlined a host of alternative cuts Ms. Napolitano could make. Yet the most telling part of that letter was the revelation that DHS will have approximately $9 billion in unspent funds by the end of FY2013, “raising the question of why we would not start reclaiming these funds,” Coburn wrote.

[…] Once again, the President of the United States has made it clear that he and his administration are prepared to implement their agenda by any means necessary. In this case, Obama, along with DHS and ICE officials, have now demonstrated that they are more than willing to potentially endanger American lives, rather than accept a “cut” that merely reduces the overall increase in government spending. The president undoubtedly sees such tactics as “negotiation.” Extortion is more like it.

The president is also threatening to drop our border guard. In a rational age, these acts would be impeachable. Not too many years ago Californians recalled a governor for offering drivers licences to illegal aliens, and here we have a president flagrantly violating his oath to defend the nation.

According to a five-page document provided to POLITICO, the sweeping proposal — agreed to in principle by eight senators — would seek to overhaul the legal immigration system as well as create a pathway to citizenship for the nation’s roughly 11 million illegal immigrants. But establishing that pathway would depend on whether the U.S. first implements stricter border enforcement measures and new rules ensuring immigrants have left the country in compliance with their visas. Young people brought to the country as children illegally and seasonal agriculture industry workers would be given a faster path to citizenship.

[…] Question: If GOP senators were serious about cracking down on the systemic, dangerous, ongoing, persistent problem of illegal alien visa overstayers and the failure to enact an effective visa tracking system since before and well after 9/11 (read THIS), why haven’t they pushed for fixing it SEPARATE AND APART from amnesty measures?

Answer: Because these cynical panderers are not serious about ending the backlog of more than 750,000 unvetted visa overstay records.

And another government “commission” to “ensure the new enforcement mechanisms take effect?” Spare us another phony, dog-and-pony Blue Ribbon Panel to Nowhere. Please.

Rubio is winning praise from some of my conservative friends for noting that we’ve been living under de facto amnesty.

Oh, yeah? How, pray tell, do these capitulationist Republicans propose to ensure that shamnesty beneficiares don’t get access to federal benefits later when they can’t do anything to prevent the Obama administration from sabotaging existing federal prohibitions on welfare for immigrants now?

Obama offered his own principles on immigration in Las Vegas on Tuesday. He pushed for a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants that is faster than the one the Senate group proposed.

Rather than emphasize border security first as the senators want, he would let undocumented immigrants go ahead and get on a path to citizenship, if they first undergo national security and criminal background checks, pay penalties, learn English and get behind those foreigners seeking to immigrate legally.

Even more arrogantly, he is proposing his own legislation, even though the president’s job is to ENFORCE the law (which he refuses to do), not WRITE the law:

“I’m hopeful that this can get done, and I don’t think that it should take many, many months. I think this is something we should be able to get done certainly this year and I’d like to see if we could get it done sooner, in the first half of the year if possible,” Obama told Telemundo.

The Obama administration has been busy arming Mexican drug cartels and Islamic radicals that don’t hesitate to kill innocent American civilians. If that’s not the very definition of treason, I don’t know what is.

The next time some liberal asks, “Why on earth would anybody need an AR-15?” tell them “because our own president has given those weapons – and more – to our enemies.”

On Wednesday during a televised announcement, President Barack Obama dramatically unveiled his plan for new gun control policies that include assault weapons bans, more thorough background checks of gun buyers, limited ammunition magazines, and government access to mental health records of potential gun buyers. However, more than one law enforcement officer told Law Enforcement Examiner that the gist of Obama’s plan was begun long ago: Arm Mexican drug cartels (Operation Fast and Furious) while disarming law-abiding American citizens.

“In just one afternoon, the man who is suspected of green lighting the smuggling of guns into the hands of the Mexican drug cartels — known as Operation Fast and Furious — has ‘outed’ himself as the king of the gun grabbers. He’s also implementing the strategy of his former chief of staff, Rahm Emanual, by not allowing ‘a good crisis to go to waste,’” said police detective Jose Santos.

While the White House was busy drafting proposals to ban assault rifles, the last of the regulations imposed on Saudi travel to the United States after September 11 were being taken apart. While some government officials were busy planning how to disarm Americans, other officials were negotiating the transfer of F-16s and Abrams tanks to Muslim Brotherhood-run Egypt.

Obama is unwilling to trust Americans with an AR-15, but is willing to trust a genocidal terrorist group with Abrams tanks and F-16 jets. The F-16’s M61 Vulcan cannon can fire 6,000 rounds a minute and the 146 lb warhead of its HARM missiles can do a lot more than put a few dents in a brick wall. The Abrams’ 120 mm cannon can penetrate 26 inches of steel armor making it a good deal more formidable than even the wildest fantasies of San Francisco liberals about the capabilities of a so-called “assault rifle.”

[…] Based on his track record, Obama believes that it is safe to send weapons to Mexican drug lords, Hezbollah and Al Qaeda terrorists, not to mention the Muslim Brotherhood, but that it’s far too dangerous for an American to own a clip that can hold more than 10 rounds.

And that means that Obama doesn’t think much of the moral character of Americans, but thinks a great deal of Muslim terrorists.

The President of the United States is publicly threatening to sign an Executive Order restricting civilian access to semi-automatic weapons.

It is no historical accident that this country’s most serious Constitution crisis since Ft. Sumter revolves around civilian possession of small arms. Remember Paul Revere? His midnight ride was to warn the countryside that ,”The Regulars [British] were coming out.” The Redcoats, under Lieutenant Colonel Francis Smith, were “coming out” of Boston and marching toward Concord to seize “military stores.” When they reached Concord, the Regulars went door to door looking for, and confiscating, guns and gunpowder.

An armed citizenry has always checked tyranny and the dictator’s lust for authority. Conversely, tyranny always hungers to disarm its citizens as soon as it assumes unbridled power. These are the immutable laws of empires and tyrants. If America begins to walk the path of further gun control, history teaches us in exquisite detail that we will not survive as a constitutional republic.

As this constitutional crisis unfolds, millions of citizens are made slack-jawed by the Obama’s Administrations rabid attacks on the 2nd and 5th Amendments and Article 1, Section 1 of the Constitution. It will be illuminating to see what key institutions of American society recognize the enormity and the precarious nature of our situation.

[…] We are in the midst of a constitutional crisis, unseen since the Civil War. The 2nd Amendment was written to protect the individual citizen from the abusive powers of a tyrannical government. Freedom to hunt and personal self-defense are additional benefits to our country. With the erosion of civilian ownership of firearms, citizens will increasingly become slaves to the government.

Everything else in this debate is just a magician’s misdirection. Obama and his co-enablers are betting the house that we won’t notice that the unique American experiment of freedom has drifted away on the winds of history.

Vice President Joe Biden told reporters at the White House on Wednesday that President Obama is going to take action on gun control and that he can do it through “executive orders.”

[T]he president is going to act,” he said. “There are executive orders, executive action, that can be taken. We haven’t decided what that is yet. But we’re compiling it all with the help of the attorney general and all the rest of the cabinet members–as well as legislative action we believe is required.”

“The Founding Fathers never envisioned Executive Orders being used to restrict our Constitutional rights,” Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-SC) said in a statement Wednesday. “We live in a republic, not a dictatorship.”

Executive orders have long been a staple of American governance – but not for use in crafting completely new policy. The Constitution merely talks of “executive power” and states that the executive branch shall “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” Major actions, up to and including war, have been conducted through executive order – but not without an authorization from Congress, even if that authorization was not an out-and-out declaration of war.

The widest-scope executive order ever issued was obvioulsy FDR’s executive order interning Japanese Americans. The Supreme Court justified FDR’s internment policy under Executive Order 9066 in the infamous Korematsu v. US (1942). Other famous executive orders – like the Eisenhower executive order to desegregate public schools – followed hard on court decisions like Brown v. Board of Education (1955).

This case, however, is most like Executive Order 10340 from Harry Truman, which tried to seize all steel mills in the country. The Supreme Court thought that went too far, and in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952), they ruled that Truman’s executive order exceeded his constitutional mandate, since it created new law rather than enforcing old law.

Aside from executive orders designed to facilitate existing state/federal information sharing regarding gun purchases, it is difficult to imagine President Obama carving out the ability to legislate guns in a broad way. But challenges to executive power haven’t stopped him before.

President Obama’s supporters love to call him the “cool” President, a “no drama” guy, and generally like to claim he is unflappable in office. Whatever the truth of that claim, there is one thing for sure: he doesn’t sweat the small stuff. Like following the law. During his four years in office this president has shown he couldn’t care less about the laws he’s supposed to be governed by as president.

This lawlessness started all the way back before he even became president. It was widely discussed in 2008 that he blatantly violated campaign donations laws by refusing to put in controls on his website that would prevent illegal, foreign donations. And we’ve only just learned as 2013 began that his 2008 campaign was levied the largest fine ever imposed on a presidential campaign for violations of campaign laws. In January the nation learned that the FEC fined Obama $375,000 for campaign reporting violations.

Once he became President, Obama immediately began misuse his powers to control Washington’s regulatory machinery to pay back pals and warp rules for ideological reasons. This president generally wields his regulatory powers with kid gloves to pay off supporters while at the same time that velvety hand holds a cudgel to smite foes.

One of his very first moves when he was swept into Washington, for instance, was to begin a program to give big payoffs to his union masters.

Obama has also engaged in a strong campaign to misuse the Department of Justice for political purposes. His emplacement of Eric Holder as Attorney General was only the first move to turn the DoJ into a weapon against Americans he doesn’t like. Writer and former DoJ lawyer J.Christian Adams has chronicledthe extensive damage Holder’s DoJ has done to the country with his and Obama’s politicization of the department.

[…] Obama has used the Environmental Protection Agency as a weapon repeatedly, as well. In only the latest example we find that a federal court has determined that the EPA overstepped its boundaries by idiotically claiming that water is a “pollutant” in order to force its will on state officials.

Another example of Obama’s disinterest in following the law was his responsibility to report his upcoming regulatory changes, the last report of which was due in October but wasn’t bothered with until December — convenientlyafter the election. The earlier April report he never issued at all.

The administration has issued stays of deportation for 102,965 illegal immigrants under President Obama’s new non-deportation policy, officials announced Friday.

Another 157,151 applications are still under review under the policy, officially known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, which grants a tentative legal status to illegal immigrants who qualify — though it does not grant them a path to citizenship.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the Homeland Security branch that administers the program, said 12,014 applications were rejected off the bat, while as many as 177,000 more applications are having their biometric data taken before entering the final review.

Hours after U.S. President Barack Obama was re-elected, the United States backed a U.N. committee’s call on Wednesday to renew debate over a draft international treaty to regulate the $70 billion global conventional arms trade.

U.N. delegates and gun control activists have complained that talks collapsed in July largely because Obama feared attacks from Republican rival Mitt Romney if his administration was seen as supporting the pact, a charge Washington denies.

Funny how Obama didn’t bother to mention this part of his agenda during the campaign.

Fun fact: every nation that has ever conducted a mass confiscation of guns and disarmed its citizenry has committed genocide against that same population within 6 years. Tyrants hate it when their intended victims can shoot back.

If American or international law enforcement actually tried to start confiscating guns, it could be the trigger that sparks an outright armed rebellion.

The unlegislated Obama amnesty for illegal aliens under 30 begins August 15 as the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) begins accepting applications for “deferred action” and work authorization. Initially, the White House estimated that about 800,000 illegal aliens would be covered under this amnesty, when the policy was first announced in June. That figure that was immediately disputed by the Pew Hispanic Center, which estimated about 1.4 million beneficiaries. In the interim, the goal posts were moved (in favor of the illegal aliens, of course) and the latest estimate from the pro-amnesty Migration Policy Institute is that 1.76 million illegal aliens will be eligible.

In fact, the number illegal aliens who are allowed to remain in this country and seek legal employment may be much higher, warn the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee. In an August 13 letter to DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) and Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) assert that as the application process begins, there are no mechanisms in place to detect, deter, or to punish fraud. None.

The lack of fraud control is not an accident; it is by design. According to the letter, DHS officials have confirmed that the Department will not use fraud prevention or detection methods that are “too expensive,” “time consuming,” or which would “unduly impact” the expedited processing of applications for deferred action or other functions of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) agency.

In other words, there will be no vetting of the people whose applications the Department intends to rubber stamp. There will be no meaningful background checks because the Department can’t be bothered to spend the time and is not inclined to charge applicants the fees necessary to make sure that the people who are being granted quasi-legal status in the U.S. are not perpetrating fraud, and are not criminals or terrorists. As a matter of fact, illegal aliens seeking deferred action and authorization to work in the U.S. will not even have to show up in person for an interview with anyone from DHS.

A mere affidavit that an individual arrived in the U.S. prior to his or her 16th birthday and is under the age of 30, accompanied by some easily acquired school or health records will suffice. In an otherwise sluggish economy the affidavit and fake records business seems destined to become a growth industry over the coming months.

And just in case anyone might think twice about perpetrating fraud, the Department has established strict guidelines to ensure that on the remote chance anyone is caught, there will be no punishment for giving it a try.

He’s blatantly buying entire voter groups with our hard-earned taxpayer money, abusing powers that aren’t even granted in the constitution. It’s time for Americans to wake up and start holding elected officials accountable for this kind of corrupt, unconstitutional behavior.

The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services will begin accepting applications Aug. 15 for the DREAM Act-like policy, which is being implemented without congressional approval.

Under the new policy, eligible applicants must have arrived in the United States before their 16th birthday, be 30 years old or younger, lived in the U.S. for at least five years and be in school, graduated or served in the military. They must not have been convicted of a felony, three misdemeanors or one “significant” misdemeanor such as driving under the influence or gun or sex charges, according to the Associated Press.

The administration said applications will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis at one of four service centers run by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service. It’s unclear how long the process will take, but some immigrants are expected to receive temporary legal status before Election Day, according to ABC News reported.

The heads of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents’ and Border Patrolmen’s unions joined Sens. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) and David Vitter (R-La.) at a recent press conference in Washington. The labor leaders exposed the end-run legalization scheme that Obama higher-ups are implementing.

U.S. agents are under orders to take the word of all illegal aliens who claim they qualify for this amnesty, union leaders said. Word from the field has it that “significant numbers” of unqualified illegals are exploiting the Obama policy.

“Officers have been told that there is no burden for the alien to prove anything,” the head of the ICE union, Chris Crane, said. Any agents who buck the Obama amnesty directive stand “under threat of losing their jobs.”

[…] “Not only is your directive an affront to our system of representative government and the legislative process,” the senators wrote, “but it is an inappropriate use of executive power.”

[…] Obama’s illegitimate power grab amounts to implementing legislation that Congress never enacted. The Senate rejected consideration of the DREAM Act in a lame duck session late in 2010. There’s no acceptable basis for what Obama’s DHS is doing.

In the creation of this country, Founding Father John Adams declared that America must be a “nation of laws, not of men.” But like most things “American,” Obama just doesn’t get that or seeks to forever undermine it.

While in spirit I’m probably closer to Obama when it comes to immigration issues than many of my conservative friends, what is unforgivable is the president of the United States usurping the law rather than doing the hard work to change it.

Polls say that the people are on Obama’s side when it comes to his illegal DREAM Act move, which means that his decision to break the law as opposed to change it reveals just what a lazy failure of a leader he really is.

A top union official for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers said Thursday that President Barack Obama’s administration has ordered ICE agents to blindly — and without any evidence — believe illegal immigrants if they claim they qualify for Obama’s administrative DREAM Act.

Chris Crane, president of the National Immigration and Customs Enforcement Council, explained at a press conference on Capitol Hill Thursday afternoon how the new selective immigration law enforcement policy Obama announced during a White House Rose Garden speech in June is affecting the officers he represents.

“As we still wait on detailed guidance from the administration, it’s impossible to understand the full scope of the administration’s changes, but what we’ve seen so far concerns us greatly,” Crane, said. “As one example, prosecutorial discretion for DREAMers is solely based on the individual’s claims. Our orders are: If an alien says they went to high school, then let them go. If they say they have a GED, then let them go.”

“Officers have been told that there is no burden for the alien to prove anything,” he continued. “Even with the greatly relaxed policies, the alien is not required to prove that they meet any of the new criteria.”

ICE officers are often called in after local and state law enforcement officials arrest a person and find that he or she is an illegal immigrant. ICE officers also conduct their own investigations and detain suspected illegal immigrants independent of other law enforcement. Normally, if the immigrant is found to be in the country illegally, ICE would bring federal charges against him, possibly leading to deportation.

Under the new orders, however, illegals can escape federal charges simply by claiming — whether it’s the truth or not — that they meet the DREAM Act rule’s requirements issued by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Crane did not specify who has given his officers these new orders.

Sometime later this week, the UN will finally unveil its Arms Trade Treaty. The exact date the treaty will be released is a secret.

Russia, China, France — with its new Socialist government — Britain and the Obama administration are writing the treaty behind closed doors. Yet even if the final treaty is being kept under wraps, we still have a pretty good idea of some of the requirements that will be in it.

The treaty seems unlikely to ever receive the two-thirds majority necessary to be ratified by the US Senate, but that doesn’t mean it still won’t have consequences for Americans. In other countries with parliamentary systems, even if the relatively conservative parties oppose approval, ratification is just a matter of time until a left-wing government takes power. Reduced private gun ownership around the world will surely lead to more pressure for gun control in our own country.

The treaty officially aims to prevent rebels and terrorist groups from getting hold of guns. The treaty claims that at least 250,000 people die each year from armed conflicts and that the vast majority of deaths arise from so-called “small arms” — machine guns, rifles, and handguns.

Regulations of private ownership will supposedly prevent rebels and terrorist groups from getting ahold of guns. But governments, not private individuals, are the sources for these weapons. For example, the FARC fighting in Colombia get their guns from the Venezuelan government.

The most likely regulations to be pushed by the UN treaty are those that have been the favorites of American gun control advocates for years — registration and licensing, micro-stamping ammunition, and restrictions on the private transfers of guns. Unfortunately, these measures have a long history of failure and primarily just inconvenience and disarm law-abiding gun owners.

Gun registration and licensing are pushed as a way to trace those who supply these illicit weapons. Yet, to see the problem with these regulations, one only needs to look at how ineffective they have been in solving crime. Canada just recently ended its long gun registry as it was a colossal waste of money.

President Barack Hussein “kill list” Obama has offered over 900 Executive Orders (EO), and he is not even through his first term. He is creating a wonderland of government controls covering everything imaginable, including a list of “Emergency Powers” and martial law EOs. And while Obama is busy issuing EOs to control everything inside the US, he has been issuing EOs to force us to submit to international regulations instead of our US Constitution.

And comments by North Carolina governor Beverly Perdue and former OMB director Peter Orszag only contribute to this pattern.

Is it now time to start connecting the dots? Obama signed EO 13603 on March 22, 2012. Then he signed EO 13617 on June 25, 2012, declaring a national emergency. Then he signed EO 13618 on July 6, 2012.

be prepared, in the event of a potential threat to the security of the United States, to take actions necessary to ensure the availability of adequate resources and production capability, including services and critical technology, for national defense requirements;

Obama has the power, through this EO, to “nationalize” (not seize) private assets in order to protect national interests. Further, the EO effectively states that he can:

1. “identify” requirements for emergencies

2. “assess” the capability of the country’s industrial and technological base

3. “be prepared” to ensure the availability of critical resources in time of national threat

4. “improve the efficiency” of the industrial base to support national defense

5. “foster cooperation” between commercial and defense sectors

There are pundits that suggest that by signing EO 13603, Obama has given himself power to declare martial law and suspend elections.

The main problem with EO 13603 is that the words/phrases in quotes can be interpreted in many ways, including ways that favor Obama and Democrats. Wait, we can have our Supreme Court decide what they mean. But that won’t work since we know four of them to be Democrat hacks, and one justice can be influenced by the MSM. […]

The Federal Government must have the ability to communicate at all times and under all circumstances to carry out its most critical and time sensitive missions. … Such communications must be possible under all circumstances to ensure national security, effectively manage emergencies, and improve national resilience.

Obama cites “national security” in this EO. I guess Obama sees ANY excuse for declaring a national security emergency will appear better than taking over the nation’s communications assets by force

Want more examples of what Obama is doing?

EO 10990 allows the Government to take over all modes of transportation and control of highways and seaports.

EO 10997 allows the government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels, and minerals.

EO 11000 allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision

EO 11002 designates the Postmaster General to operate a national registration of all persons.

EO 11003 allows the government to take over all airports and aircraft, including commercial aircraft.

EO 11004 allows the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate and establish new locations for populations.

EO 11005 allows the government to take over railroads, inland waterways, and public storage facilities.

Are we beginning to see a pattern here? We’re being prepared for a national emergency. Then there’s taking control. I personally think that what Obama is doing goes way beyond being prepared.

This blog is a labor of love for you, the reader who loves this country and wants to stay informed of the threats to our liberty and how to make a difference. I receive no compensation for blogging and pay for web services out of our family budget. Would you consider making a small donation to help? Just like the fight for liberty, every little bit makes a difference!

Note: Please keep your comments respectful and relevant to the topic at hand. I will not approve ad hominem attacks or profanity. Nor will I approve comments by advertisers using their business or product and hyperlink as their username. This blog is not a forum for free advertising.